Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks

Note: In this article I mention that I have studied the Taylor Site tracks
as recently as 1989, the year the article was published. Since then I have
studied the site and other Paluxy sites many more times, including multiple
trips in 2005 and 2006.

Despite partial backtracking on the Paluxy "man track"
claims by creationist leaders in recent years, the claims were
never fully abandoned, and recently the Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) and other creationist groups have encouraged some
new (actually rehashed) "man track" claims initiated by Carl Baugh and associates.

In the December 1988 issue of ICR's Acts and Facts, John
Morris explained that he had returned to the Paluxy this past
September to investigate "new evidence" gathered by Carl Baugh
and Don Patton.[1] Although Baugh and Patton acknowledge that
the Taylor Trail is dinosaurian, they now are proposing that a
human being followed the same trail, leaving a human print inside (or partially inside)
each dinosaur track. Although Morris stated that the "over
printing" model "may sound bizarre," and that ICR does not advocate
it, he proceeded to do just that, maintaining that the new
model was "supported by the existence of somewhat human-like
impressions, each rather consistent in length..." and "in several
cases, toe-like impressions are seen in the proper location.
Some are best denoted by an accentuated discoloration."[2]

Although Morris tempered these assertions by stating that
"certain identification is lacking," what actually is lacking is
any legitimate evidence for the new claims. Having intensively
studied the Taylor Site since 1980 (and as recently as January
1989, I can testify that none of the Taylor Trail tracks (or
other trails on the site) contain clear human features, and most
do not even closely resemble human prints. In fact, the new "man
track" claims are not really new, but are simply variations on
the old, thoroughly refuted claims. What Baugh and Patton are
now claiming as human prints are merely portions of the largely
infilled metatarsal segment (sole and heel) of the dinosaur
prints, or in some cases small portions of limestone are aoutside the track as well--whatever they
could imagine or depict to be somewhat human-like--essentially the same depressions previously misinterpreted
by various creationists as human prints. Besides using some of techniques of earlier human track advocates such
as selectively highlighting the depressions to encourage shapes, Patton has also done so with
even more questionable photo-editing manipulations.

Morris' claim that the "human-like" depressions are "fairly
consistent in length" is unfounded, since 1. none of the
depressions are very human-like, and 2. The same depressions have been
interpreted in vastly different ways by different creationist
authors--some claiming they were "giant human prints" from 16 to
19 inches long,[3,4] and others, such as Morris and Stan Taylor,
indicating that the "best" prints in the trail represented normal
sized feet about 10 inches long.[5] Baugh and Patton recently
attempted to show that the "new" human prints (in the same dinosaur
tracks) are each 11 1/2 inches long. This they did by
partially filling each track with muddy water until a puddle
about 11 1/2 inches long was achieved!

The ambiguity of the supposed "man tracks" within the dinosaur
tracks is further exemplified by the fact that neither
Morris nor other creationists who reexamined the Taylor Site on
several occasions between 1985 and 1988 reported any new human-
like features there--until they were "found" by Baugh and Patton
this summer--even though the tracks have changed very little
since 1985. Ironically, Baugh stated to me while standing on the
Taylor Site in 1985, "No one would call these prints human."

Also unfounded is Morris' assertion that several prints
contain properly configured "toe-like impressions" or that they
are "accentuated by colorations." None of the depressions
contain anything approaching clear human toe marks, and the few
markings that Baugh and Patton are claiming as toes are
merely vague or irregular features representing broken and or
partially eroded portions of the infilling material, or (in one
case) a mud-crack pattern. Any "discolorations" associated
with these supposed "toes" are ill-defined and superficial
features within the infilled regions. These are quite different
from the more distinct and significant color contrasts occurring
at the boundary of the infilling material and the surrounding
substrate, which, along with texture and relief features, define
the dinosaur digits.[6] Further, in no case are the supposed
human toes accompanied by a complete or clear set of other human
features (ball, arch, heel), and often the contours of the track
contradict those of genuine human prints.

Curiously, Morris evidently does not question ill-defined
colorations misapplied to dubious "man track" claims, but
previously suggested that distinct color and texture features
indicating dinosaurian digits might be fraudulent stains (despite
much evidence to the contrary), and that his core samples of the
tracks were "inconclusive."[7] Whether Morris still believes
them "inconclusive" he did not clarify. Core samples taken by
Ron Hastings and me in recent years has well-established the
genuineness of the cores, and, along with other evidences,
thoroughly confirm the dinosaurian origin of the tracks.[8]

One might wonder why Baugh has resorted to hunting "man
tracks" among previously refuted evidences on the Taylor Site,
when Baugh himself claims to have found over 50 human tracks
along the McFall property during his previous excavations.[9]
The probable reason is that even most creationists have realized
that Baugh's claims did not match the evidence, and possibly
Baugh and Patton are now desperate to salvage something "man
trackish" from the Paluxy, especially since their much lauded
"human tooth"[10] is looking more and more "fishy."

Morris suggested in his article that if the
alleged human
tooth (found by Baugh along the Paluxy in 1987) could be shown to
be human, then a better case could be made for the human tracks.
Actually, the quality of the "man track" evidence really has
nothing to do with the tooth (each evidence should stand on its
own), but the point may be moot, since the evidence is overwhelming
that the tooth is a fish tooth. Morris' acknowledged
that the tooth resembles a certain kind of fish tooth, but stated
(without documentation) that "objective chemical tests" have
supported the human interpretation. Morris neglected to mention
that biologist (and fellow creationist) David Menton had studied
the tooth with a scanning electron microscope and concluded that
it was not human and probably was a fish tooth.[11] The same
conclusion was reached by Ron Hastings and other mainstream
scientists who have studied similar teeth from the Paluxy.[12]

Of perhaps greater concern than the new, unfounded claims of
Baugh and others is physical damage done to some tracks this
summer by Baugh's improper field methods. At least one Taylor
Site track was partially damaged when Baugh and associates poured
plaster into it (even though it had undercuts), and then had to
use hammers and chisels to break out the hardened plaster (rubber
casting material should have been used). A glob of plaster they
poured into one of the Ryals Trail tracks is still stuck
there.[13] Earlier in 1988 Baugh and associates attempted to
physically remove a dinosaur track from the McFall ledge. Not
only is this a possible violation of state law[14] (and a bad
example at best), but the track evidently was destroyed in the
process (the hole was not cut deep enough to allow the track to
be removed intact). Curiously, no creationist leaders have said
anything about these serious problems.

Morris' article is an unfortunate sign for young earth
creationism. It indicates an unwillingness to fully abandon past
claims (no matter how well-refuted), and a return to the same
kind of faulty research, deficient documentation, and inaccurate
reporting that fostered the Paluxy mess in the first place.
Instead of helping to set the record straight on the Paluxy
issue, Morris' article undoubtedly will contribute to the spread
of new misinformation among creationists and the public at large.
Already some creationists are calling for the film Footprints
in Stone [15] to be reinstated.[16] Evidently little if anything
was learned from past mistakes.

References

[1] Carl Baugh is a former Baptist minister who has been excavating and
promoting "man tracks" and other alleged fossil anomalies along the
Paluxy since 1982. Don Patton is vice chairman of MIOS (Metroplex Institute of Origin Science), a small creationist group in
Dallas that is actively supporting Baugh's work.

[2] Morris, John D., 1988, "Continued Research on the Paluxy
Tracks," Acts and Facts, Vol. 17, No. 12. Although the article
was anonymous, subsequent correspondence with John Morris confirmed that he was the author.

[10] Ref. 10, pp. 1-3. The newsletter proclaimed that
the tooth was human, based on the testimonies of dentists and
various questionable analyses and invalid comparisons (see
ref. 11.) Reactions from other creationist groups have varied
from strong support of Baugh's claims (MIOS, Genesis Institute)
to cautious encouragement (ICR) and mixed reviews (BSA).

[13] Track IIS+1 and the surface around it was chipped and
gouged; the track with the glob of stuck plaster is RY+2. Other
questionable practices included Baugh's placing sandbags over the
anterior end of an elongate dinosaur track (covering indications
of dinosaurian digits) and then showing the remaining portion of
the track to tourists as a human track.

[14] Texas law forbids removal of dinosaur tracks from the
public lands, which according to local authorities includes the
Paluxy Riverbed, but there is some question as to whether the
ledge along the riverbank from which the dinosaur track was
removed is considered part of the riverbed.

[16] Taylor, Stan, 1973, Footprints in Stone, 16 mm film,
Films for Christ Association, Mesa, Arizona. For many years the
film promoted the "man track" claims, but was withdrawn from
circulation shortly after John Morris and representatives of FFC
met with me at the site in late 1985 to discuss the evidence (at
which time I pointed out abundant evidence against the claims).